thegreekdog wrote:Let's say 2008 crash happens in an unfettered free market.(1) No bailouts using your tax dollars to those same financial institutions(2) Instead, the financial institutions crash, are eliminated, and new financial institutions take their place with the idea that they maybe shouldn't do the same shit as the old financial institutions. (3) Your tax dollars don't go to failed financial institutions with no incentive not to f*ck up again.

This doesn't make sense because the bailouts could still happen under that scenario. After all, they were "too big to fail".

Typically, arguments against free markets often confuse current outcomes as products of the free market. Woodruff here is forgetting that (1) the "too big to fail" dilemma was created by decades of government policies, and (2) "too big to fail" is mostly rhetoric with some soundness. In other words, it isn't completely true; it's just said like that in order to justify bailouts to the electorate.

crispybits wrote:Hang on, so self-regulation is the solution to the problem caused because government and big banks are in each others' pockets and the line between bankers and regulators has become blurred? Am I misunderstanding something here or is there some delicious irony being served up?

I think we're operating with different definitions of "self-regulation."

You stated explicitly that you believed the banking industry should have no or very little oversight. You stated it explicitly. How is that taking you out of context? Here you go:

thegreekdog wrote:(1) I think there should be no or limited oversight of banks and financial institutions (so Ms. Warren and I would part ways on that point).

It's out of context because I stated it in the context of banks and financial institutions, not in the context of workers and monopolies. If you would stop breaking up every one of my posts, maybe this kind of thing wouldn't happen as much.

Woodruff wrote:This doesn't make sense because the bailouts could still happen under that scenario. After all, they were "too big to fail".

The bailouts could still happen, but they wouldn't. It's my scenario.

So you don't want any actual discussion then.

Seriously?

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:There was no bailout of the cheesesteak place down the street from my house, for example.

It would be difficult for that to be considered "to big to fail", as well.

Who determines whether a bank or financial institution is "too big to fail?"

Woodruff wrote:[

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Never mind that, as I already pointed out, we have options now and nobody uses them.

What options?

I already talked about the fact that people could have been availing themselves of smaller more local banks and credit unions, particularly since the bailouts. Yet they haven't. Why? Because in the "free market", advertising controls everything and advertising does not need to be honest. Therefore, those who can pay for the most and best advertising, regardless of their actual business practices, will garner the business. If we already have perfectly valid options and aren't taking them, why would that change when the banks are no longer regulated?

Because the banks that failed would fail and not be propped up by government bailouts and government regulations that they draft.

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Anti-trust laws no longer apply. Hell, just look at the collusion amongst phone companies, as well as colleges and universities. It is in business' interests to support one another at a certain level, and it is being allowed.

They no longer apply? Why not?

Don't ask me, I'm not the one expected to enforce them.

Pat Summerall: The Woodruff Spocks come in to punt. And there's a booming kick!

The answer is because the colleges/universities and phone companies are engaged in rent-seeking. So, again, if anti-trust laws don't apply to those institutions, it's because the government is not enforcing them. And then government is not enforcing them because they get dollars or other benefits from those institutions. So, again, why is our current system better than an alternative?

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:The idea of not regulating banks at all strikes me as honestly insane.

Okay, just to make sure I understand:Current situation - Government collects tax dollars from taxpayers and uses that money to not regulate banks sufficiently because said banks write the laws, support the regulators, and support the politicians. = Not insane.Potential situation - Government collects no tax dollars and free market "regulates" the banks itself. = InsaneGot it.

Look dude, explain your position better instead of saying "thegreekdog's position is insane" and you wouldn't have to resort to ad hominem attacks that just make you look like a douchebag.

For the third or fourth time, I'm telling you the differences between our current position and the free market position and I'm telling you the free market position is net better. It's net better because (a) banks that fail will be allowed to fail and (b) you don't have to pay taxes so that banks can regulate themselves.

You've yet to make any argument that the current position is better except to point out that a free market system would mean worker abuse and monopolies which have nothing to do with a discussion of financial institutions and to make ad hominem attacks. Either come up with some kind of halfway decent argument or stay the f*ck out of this thread.

BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not. She holds an imaginary vision of regulators and bankers/analysts/etc. That's not safe.

The imaginary vision that they should do their job? I knew you wouldn't like her.

Right, that's it, Woodruff. That's exactly my position.

Well at least you explained it.

Oh wait, you haven't explained anything except to claim that she holds an imaginary view of regulators, bankers and analysts. Well done, Phatscotty.

Ah, so when someone doesn't explain something enough, and instead of asking any questions, the most "logical" approach of yours is to create a strawman fallacy. How's that modus operandi working out for ya?

How's your modus operandi of pretending that you're actually interested in discussion working out for you?

thegreekdog: Good follow-up. I don't have time at the moment to read through them more carefully, but I will try to respond to them when I get home from work tonight.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not. She holds an imaginary vision of regulators and bankers/analysts/etc. That's not safe.

The imaginary vision that they should do their job? I knew you wouldn't like her.

Right, that's it, Woodruff. That's exactly my position.

Well at least you explained it.

Oh wait, you haven't explained anything except to claim that she holds an imaginary view of regulators, bankers and analysts. Well done, Phatscotty.

Ah, so when someone doesn't explain something enough, and instead of asking any questions, the most "logical" approach of yours is to create a strawman fallacy. How's that modus operandi working out for ya?

How's your modus operandi of pretending that you're actually interested in discussion working out for you?

thegreekdog: Good follow-up. I don't have time at the moment to read through them more carefully, but I will try to respond to them when I get home from work tonight.

I've been interested. I just don't respect your acting like a dick for no good reason. Carry on being a dick, or be an adult. The choice is yours.